Racism Part two

[El Zen]

6 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

instead he went to a small, often stigmatised group.

The thing is, I think he's taking advantage of the Roma group as it's bound to cause less uproar than if he were to target i.e. the black community. It's sleasy and without class.

Have you actually heard the joke he told, in the context it was told?

Just before, he told a joke where the punchline essentially was «all terrorists are muslims». Are Muslims also a small, «easy» group to target? 

It’s satire. Context matters. 

[magnkarl]

Just now, El Zen said:

Have you actually heard the joke he told, in the context it was told?

Just before, he told a joke where the punchline essentially was «all terrorists are muslims». Are Muslims also a small, «easy» group to target? 

It’s satire. Context matters. 

Muslim jokes are apparently okay in the U.K. Even the Prime Minister tells them.

(and jokes aside, Muslim isn't a race, and wasn't killed in the millions by germans because of it).

[El Zen]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Muslim jokes are apparently okay in the U.K. Even the Prime Minister tells them.

(and jokes aside, Muslim isn't a race, and wasn't killed in the millions by germans because of it).

You haven’t answered my question at all.

(and try telling my Bosnian in-laws that muslims have never been victims of genocide.) 

Edited February 10, 2022 by El Zen

[magnkarl]

4 minutes ago, El Zen said:

Have you actually heard the joke he told, in the context it was told?

Just before, he told a joke where the punchline essentially was «all terrorists are muslims». Are Muslims also a small, «easy» group to target? 

It’s satire. Context matters. 

Yes I've heard it. I think a good rule for anyone threading this line with the n-word and talking about topics that are this hot, just don't. If you need to come out and explain that you aren't racist, you probably said something racist. It's not that hard.

He got much bigger laughs from much more dosile topics in the same set.

[El Zen]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

Yes I've heard it. I think a good rule for anyone threading this line with the n-word and talking about topics that are this hot, just don't. If you need to come out and explain that you aren't racist, you probably said something racist. It's not that hard.

He got much bigger laughs from much more dosile topics in the same set.

I think that is a terrible framework for a comedian, and would be the definitive and ultimate death of satire as an artform. 

[magnkarl]

1 minute ago, El Zen said:

I think that is a terrible framework for a comedian, and would be the definitive and ultimate death of satire as an artform. 

I don't think it is. A racist joke is still racist and will get laughs in the right crowd. How it looks outside of the room is another thing. Satire should punch up, not down. We're past blackface and giggling at race, it's possible to be fun without punching down. Jimmy Carr has enough experience to know this.

[El Zen]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I don't think it is. A racist joke is still racist and will get laughs in the right crowd. How it looks outside of the room is another thing. Satire should punch up, not down. We're past blackface and giggling at race, it's possible to be fun without punching down. Jimmy Carr has enough experience to know this.

I think the difference is I think Jimmy Carr is very much punching upwards. Or at least sideways. 

Insulting Romani people wasn’t the point of the joke.

Edited February 10, 2022 by El Zen

[StefanAVFC]

26 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I don't think it is. A racist joke is still racist and will get laughs in the right crowd. 

Hmm.

Not sure I'm comfortable with this.

I'm not a racist in the slightest, but I've watched stand up where the jokes have been undeniably racist, laughed because they were good jokes, and did that shocked face at the same time.

Comedy is comedy. If it's safe and boring, it's safe and boring.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, El Zen said:

I think that is a terrible framework for a comedian, and would be the definitive and ultimate death of satire as an artform. 

If satire relied on playing to people's basest prejudices about ethnic minorities, it wouldn't be worth saving. 

I don't think it needs to rely on that. 

(That being said, I haven't seen any brilliant satire for a very long time indeed, and it seems most people attempting it just aren't good at it anyway)

[El Zen]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

If satire relied on playing to people's basest prejudices about ethnic minorities, it wouldn't be worth saving. 

I don't think it needs to rely on that. 

But that wasn’t what I was replying to. I’m saying comedians shouldn’t cut jokes  because some people might not understand who the joke is really making fun of, or because they’re offensive if taken literally. Satire needs to be both insensitive and acutely sensitive at the same time. We could argue about how successful Jimmy Carr’s joke was at the latter part, but no matter where we land on that particular question, I think some of  the reactions to the joke are way OTT. 

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, El Zen said:

But that wasn’t what I was replying to. I’m saying comedians shouldn’t cut jokes  because some people might not understand who the joke is really making fun of, or because they’re offensive if taken literally. Satire needs to be both insensitive and acutely sensitive at the same time. We could argue about how successful Jimmy Carr’s joke was at the latter part, but no matter where we land on that particular question, I think some of  the reactions to the joke are way OTT. 

ATEOTD I just disagree with your interpretation of the joke. It was not in any way 'anti-racist', and it was entirely premised on the fact that anti-traveller prejudice is a] one of the forms of prejudice it's considered perfectly acceptable to display in company in the UK, and b] he could be confident that a large part of his audience would share it. A joke *relying* on a widely-held prejudice is not the same as a joke *confronting* it. 

[NurembergVillan]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

 

It’s good that you took no offence from it, it probably needs more Romani people like you to tell us their feelings about being the subject of holocaust jokes.

Can't lie, I'm intrigued to find out whether you knew @El Zen had Romani heritage...

[El Zen]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

ATEOTD I just disagree with your interpretation of the joke. It was not in any way 'anti-racist', and it was entirely premised on the fact that anti-traveller prejudice is a] one of the forms of prejudice it's considered perfectly acceptable to display in company in the UK, and b] he could be confident that a large part of his audience would share it. A joke *relying* on a widely-held prejudice is not the same as a joke *confronting* it. 

Fair enough. I agree with both a) and b) and that’s why I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion

[MakemineVanilla]

I like jokes which are told about the group the person belongs to.

Jewish jokes always have that kernal of truth, and Irish jokes have that irony which the British often fail to understand.

I even like jokes which play on the prejudice against Brummies.

I was taught as a child that there is a prejudice against Brummies, when some guy at the seaside, asked where I was from, and then asked me whether that was where all the stupid people live.

I therefore understood why every Brummie I know who went to Uni, changed their accent.

The Jews I have known, never thought it was a good idea to let their children wonder into the world, ignorant of the prejudice against them.

I tend to think that racism and prejudice will never be entirely eradicated, so it is probably better to prepare children to deal with it.

 

[Chindie]

2 hours ago, El Zen said:

Is it though? I mean, is that really the point of the joke? Isn’t it really suggesting that people still think of gypsies as an undesirable group, and the point of the joke is to expose that? Isn’t he essentially saying that the reason we never talk about it is because we as a society are kind of okay with it? 

Isn’t it just textbook satire? 

I don’t see it as an attack on a volnurable group. I’d say it’s really the opposite. I certainly took no offense from it. 

 

Yes there's undoubtedly a satirical element to it, and that backs up the shock element of it and will have been what Carr was going for. The problem is that side of the joke comes with a considerable collateral that perpetuates the long-standing view of travellers as undesirables. And it's the collateral that hits first and foremost.

In many ways it's a clever gag. It works on multiple levels - misdirection, shock, satire... - but because of the subject matter, the focus, and who is saying it, it is undermined by the immediate punch that its a posh bloke suggesting the murder of thousands of an 'undesirable' group of people is a good thing. If that was a Romani comedian, it's a different gag, more appropriate, still very dark and very pointed. When it's Jimmy Carr... Not so much.

[chrisp65]

46 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Can't lie, I'm intrigued to find out whether you knew @El Zen had Romani heritage...

 

Nope, I just presumed it from his not having taken offence.

I’ve got two friends that would describe themselves as traveller, as it happens I haven’t spoken to either since this thing blew up.

I’d suggest Mr Carr was lucky he didn’t tell the joke in a room where they were present. They are both built to run through walls and can be ‘prickly’ if people say the wrong thing. 

Finding myself in a very awkward position on the whole subject, being very pro free speech for comedians, and very pro showing respect to all cultures and whatnot. 

[LondonLax]

47 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Yes there's undoubtedly a satirical element to it, and that backs up the shock element of it and will have been what Carr was going for. The problem is that side of the joke comes with a considerable collateral that perpetuates the long-standing view of travellers as undesirables. And it's the collateral that hits first and foremost.

In many ways it's a clever gag. It works on multiple levels - misdirection, shock, satire... - but because of the subject matter, the focus, and who is saying it, it is undermined by the immediate punch that its a posh bloke suggesting the murder of thousands of an 'undesirable' group of people is a good thing. If that was a Romani comedian, it's a different gag, more appropriate, still very dark and very pointed. When it's Jimmy Carr... Not so much.

If it was a Romani comedian it wouldn't have nearly as much power. Self deprecating humour is safe family friendly humour and is nowhere near as exciting as the controversy and debate this joke produced. 

[NurembergVillan]

13 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Finding myself in a very awkward position on the whole subject, being very pro free speech for comedians, and very pro showing respect to all cultures and whatnot. 

Same.

**** me, society's a mess, isn't it?

[StefanAVFC]

Replying to @foreveryoung on his now deleted point that 'White Chicks' dehumanises white people, that racism needs to completely work both ways (eg white chicks is equal to blackface) and that am I happy feeling guilty for slavery.

How are black people dressed as white people 'dehumanising them'? They are still humans. They aren't dressed up as white people because they think white people are not human.

In history when were white people ever dehumanised by black people wearing white on their face? White people did it because they literally saw black people as sub-human and society agreed.

It never worked both ways. Black people have never systematically owned white people as slaves, and it be socially ok. I don't feel blamed or guilty, but I acknowledge that history wasn't equal to our ancestors. I can accept the 'discrimination' of not being able to use the n word, or accept that black and white face are 2 different standards.

[foreveryoung]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Replying to @foreveryoung on his now deleted point that 'White Chicks' dehumanises white people, that racism needs to completely work both ways (eg white chicks is equal to blackface) and that am I happy feeling guilty for slavery.

How are black people dressed as white people 'dehumanising them'? They are still humans. They aren't dressed up as white people because they think white people are not human.

In history when were white people ever dehumanised by black people wearing white on their face? White people did it because they literally saw black people as sub-human and society agreed.

It never worked both ways. Black people have never systematically owned white people as slaves, and it be socially ok. I don't feel blamed or guilty, but I acknowledge that history wasn't equal to our ancestors. I can accept the 'discrimination' of not being able to use the n word, or accept that black and white face are 2 different standards.

Sounds like your living by the past. Iv'e never really been interested in history, but regarding racism I certainly know my limits. It seems you take this matter very seriously, an that's fine. but it's not me.

If I saw a white guy dressed up as TuPac, which I saw recently. I really wouldn't relate it to disrespect, neither did many people of colour, as I have witnessed it, they found it quite funny, especially when he was trying to rap like him. As we know it's about context. If I saw a white guy dressed as a person of color with slave clothes on, it would be a step to far. 

You have to see things in context, you said you don't mind hearing racist jokes? All the white and black teenage gangsters call each other the N word, are they being racist to each other, I very much doubt it.